Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Something’s gone horribly wrong economically in this country, so highly regarded across the globe for its spirit of enterprise and golden opportunity. And while it’s true that from the greatest challenges arise the greatest opportunities, it is also true that things are getting objectively worse for already struggling communities, who for generations have known unemployment and poverty as norms.

Still, even though fewer Americans than ever before are likely to achieve the promise of upward mobility for themselves or their kids, Americas cling to the mythology of meritocracy—or, as comic provocateur George Carlin once quipped, an American Dream that one needs to be asleep to believe in. Entrepreneurship is the most celebrated version of that dream.

“From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America’s wealth and prosperity,” Obama declared as the opening premise of his deficit-reduction plan in April. “More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people.”

If you work hard enough, have a good enough idea and a positive attitude, you have the recipe for success—or so the narrative of American wealth goes.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

The hateful acts that occurred at the tea party rally in Washington this weekend were not isolated incidents -- they are part of a growing pattern of violent rhetoric, racially charged imagery, and paranoid conspiracy theories emerging from the Republican party's grassroots supporters.

Republicans officials have contributed to this atmosphere with fear-mongering and coded racism, and they have actively courted this element of their party. It's time that Republican leadership is forced to address what it's helped to create.

Please join us in confronting Republican leaders and demanding that they take responsibility for tamping down the bigotry and hate among their supporters, and that they disavow the fear-mongering that leads to it. And please ask your friends and family to do the same -- unless we take a strong stand against this kind of hate, it will continue. We need as many people as possible -- of every race -- demanding that it stop.

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

On March 4th, as the University of California San Diego continues to roil with the fallout from the so-called Compton Cookout, thousands of students and faculty will participate in statewide protests against a draconian budget that has cut a bloody swath into California’s public universities. UC and Cal State student activists across the state are calling for an end to the “privatization” of public higher education.

Activists charge that university officials are increasingly siphoning funding for instruction to research and development through byzantine private investment schemes. In addition, there is a growing trend to give preference to out-of-state students who pay higher admission fees. The majority of these students are not from historically underrepresented African American and Latino communities.

This strategy essentially reduces spots for working class students of color who are far more likely to rely on financial aid. While UC chancellor Mark Yudoff recently boasted of an $800,000 salary and perks to star faculty, “grunt” faculty and staff were laid off or forced to take furlough days, classes were canceled, program funding was curtailed and a draconian 32% tuition hike was proposed. Yudoff’s king’s ransom was garnered on the backs of California students of color who will be denied access to a system that is nationally regarded as the “Rolls Royce” of public higher education.

For those experienced with the business of white supremacist higher education politics, the UCSD administration’s pro forma soul searching, public denunciations and earnest pledges to discipline the “Cookout” offenders are all tiresomely familiar. In 2005, a Black female student at the private California Institute of the Arts found vulgar anti-Black epithets scrawled in her dorm room and degrading anti-Black graffiti had been written on an artwork in the Institute’s gallery.

In response to the incidents, the campuses’ Black Student Union organized protests and meetings with the administration which yielded few commitments to long term change. The school’s miniscule Black and Latino population was imperiled by scant financial aid, invisibility in the Eurocentric curriculum and the paucity of faculty mentors of color.

White faculty fiercely defended their liberal/progressive credentials with showy claims of multiculti “down-ness.” The college president publicly invoked his appreciation for Martin Luther King and deplored the hate crime as an isolated incident. When I was hired in 2006 to teach Cal Arts’ first Women of Color in the U.S. course, the campus was still festering with resentment and racial unrest. Pushing for campus climate change in a group of faculty and student advocates, I presented at endless meetings in which the administration stonewalled on redressing institutional bias through professional development training. The perpetrators had been given a slap on the wrist and it was business as usual in the “liberal” “inclusive” world of arts education that privileged the canon of the white avant garde.

During an interview on CNN, UCSD Ethnic Studies professor Sara Clark Kaplan outlined the crux of the problem with scapegoating individuals in the midst of a systemic crisis. It’s simply not acceptable to blame the university’s egregious disregard for the needs of students of color on the bigoted acts of ignorant white or “minority” students. UCSD’s gross under-representation of Black students reflects the UC system’s institutional neglect of recruitment and outreach to African American high schools. The devastating impact of Proposition 209 (which prohibited California public universities from using affirmative action admissions criteria) has been a convenient smokescreen for maintaining segregation in the UC system.

When I taught at UCLA in 2001 at the Graduate School of Education I had only one African American student in my course on culturally relevant pedagogy. Black students had gone from having a vibrantly visible presence during my stint as a student there during the late 80s and early 90s to barely registering. In some instances it was more difficult for accomplished African American seniors from highly regarded predominantly Black Los Angeles high schools like King-Drew Medical Magnet to get into UCLA than Ivy League colleges.

At slightly more than 1%, UCSD’s Black student enrollment is yet another indictment of the UC’s disgraceful wholesale complicity with the spirit of 209. As part of its demands to administration, UCSD’s Black Student Union has called on the university to step up its recruitment and retention efforts for underrepresented students. They have also pressed for more recruitment of diverse faculty and granting of tenure to faculty of color.

Recruitment, retention and tenure are important goals. Yet the deeper question of the lack of cultural responsiveness of the faculty and administration is a thornier issue. The ghettoization of ethnic studies and other so-called “minority-oriented” interdisciplinary departments contributes to a segregation of cultural knowledge in which the historical foundations of racial apartheid are obscured. Racism is viewed as a series of misguided individual acts rather than as an integral part of American national identity, power and authority. At core, the UCSD events are merely another manifestation of the post-racial fallacy that plays out every day in California’s first world apartheid classrooms.

Sikivu Hutchinson is the editor of blackfemlens.org and the author of the forthcoming Moral Combat: Black Atheists, Gender Politics and Secular America.

Friday, February 12, 2010

President Obama says the stimulus saved or created two million jobs
in 2009. But is the recovery really working? The American dream of good
jobs and strong communities is still just a dream for too many. The
unfair economy hurts certain groups more, and that ends up hurting
everyone. From the bottom line to the unemployment line to the color
line, watch a new in-depth program from Link TV and Applied Research Center (ARC) for a closer look: ColorLines: Race and Economic Recovery.

ColorLines: Race and Economic Recovery
follows communities making ends meet in the Great Recession. The
program narrates the moving story of Tisha, mother of three in
Connecticut, facing a social safety net shredded further by the crisis.
Then the program goes to Los Angeles where community-based organization
SCOPE has mobilized to win green jobs for communities of color. Learn
more on ARC's ColorLines page.

For those not familiar with the term "net neutrality," it describes the rules and practices that currently keep the Internet a free and open communication medium. Net neutrality guarantees that blogs, small businesses, and organizations are on a level playing field with the largest corporations. Whether you're GM or an individual, the content you put online is accessible and delivered in the same way, with the same priority, and nothing is blocked. For communities of color, net neutrality is key. It keeps barriers to Internet entrepreneurship low so that anyone with a good idea and some technical savvy can join the 21st century economy.

Predictably, the major players in the broadband industry have been fighting the FCC's efforts to adopt rules that would solidify net neutrality principles into law, because scrapping net neutrality would enable them to make even more money by creating new revenue streams. Ironically, civil rights leaders and CBC members have joined the dominant players. Their stated reasoning: the belief that net neutrality rules could hurt efforts to close the digital divide. The problem is that, as far as I can see, the argument doesn't hold water. It falls apart whether you approach it from the perspective of business, common sense, or history.

"My hope in writing my first post was that it might encourage civil
rights leaders who have opposed or questioned net neutrality to
publicly explain their positions."

My hope in writing my first post was that it might encourage civil rights leaders who have opposed or questioned net neutrality to publicly explain their positions. Given what's at stake, I think its incumbent on leaders opposing or questioning net neutrality to publicly make clear why. Unfortunately, none have done so.

While leadership remained silent, my post did elicit some responses, which follow the same pattern--uncritically echoing industry talking points while trying to change the subject from the arguments I put on the table. Take, for example, the open letter posted by Navarrow Wright, a former television and Internet executive and current strategic consultant. I gather from Wright's resume that he is an accomplished and intelligent guy, but his criticism of my piece typifies the shoddy argumentation and confusing of issues from the loudest voices against net neutrality. While Wright failed to engage the arguments I put on the table, in the interest of public debate, I want to take on his assumptions one by one.

Wright opens:

... the civil rights groups fought hard to make sure the FCC developed the principles of net neutrality--this is nothing new, we've been living with net neutrality since 2004. Those principles made it possible for you to create Color of Change and for Senator Barack Obama to become President Obama. You should thank the people that helped make it all happen. Instead you question their sincerity.

It's his first attempt to side-step the issues. The question isn't about whether the civil rights organizations in question were at one point instrumental in establishing our current net neutrality principles (a claim which I have yet to find any evidence to back up). The question is why these leaders are opposing the policy now, and it's one they should be able to answer. Over and over during the course of this debate, many of these leaders have acted as though it's disrespectful (or worse) to ask them for evidence to back up their claims about net neutrality. This appears to be a tactic designed to shut down any discussion of the actual issues at hand.

Wright continues by echoing the industry talking point, "We all know the fight today is between Google and the ISPs." While there are several powerful business interests at play, it has no bearing on my concerns or arguments. The broadband industry would love to portray the fight over net neutrality as one between themselves and Google, but my support for net neutrality reflects the views of thousands of independent filmmakers and musicians, community organizers and activists, and Internet entrepreneurs struggling to harness the power of the Internet to launch new products. And while we look at who's talking, I think it's important to look at the relationships in play. My organization hasn't taken a dime from Google or any other corporation with a key interest in either side of the debate. Many of the organizations most vocally opposing net neutrality would have difficulty saying the same.

Wright continues:

Don't you think the FCC should answer the questions raised by the civil rights leaders and CBC? Why is it wrong to ask the FCC to make sure the rules they are proposing will not widen the digital divide? Why is it wrong to ask the FCC to make sure the rules they develop will not lead to regressive pricing which would shackle poor people? Why is it wrong to ask that the costs be borne by the people that cause them and not by the under-served? Why are you so afraid of the answers to these questions?

Throughout his piece he asserts that the civil rights groups are only “asking questions" that we “shouldn’t be afraid to answer.” After reading it a couple of times, I realized where I had seen this technique before: Wright’s piece -- and the broader arguments he seeks to defend -- are the rhetorical equivalent of a push poll.

"Push polls are a well known and highly effective political trick. They ask questions that insert into the public consciousness a false idea, positioning a baseless assumption as plausible."

Push polls are a well known and highly effective political trick. They ask questions that insert intothe public consciousness a false idea, positioning a baseless assumption as plausible. Navarrow Wright, and the civil rights organizations he is defending, are effectively “push-polling” net neutrality. They are asking the question, “If you knew that net neutrality would widen the digital divide, would you support it?” The question is asked without any evidence to suggest that the premise of the question is true, but the question itself alters the frame of the debate. The effect has been real--FCC commissioners who know the truth about net neutrality are being held hostage by debunked theories, as they don’t want to be perceived as embracing policy that could hurt minority communities.

Finally, Wright suggests that the FCC has a bad record on issues of concern to communities of color:

Maybe you don't quite grasp why minority leadership is vexed. Perhaps you're too young to understand why many of our elders, who've given their lives and wear the scars of the struggle, feel the need to seek the truth. You might not understand why they don't trust the FCC to get it right. Understandable mistakes if this is your first foray into media and communications issues...but there is a long history behind their deep skepticism and it makes sense that they would question the FCC on its intended course of action.

Putting aside the personal attack against me, if you follow Wright's reasoning then we should obstruct the ability of the US Congress to make laws even when they're in the interest of our communities, as is the case with net neutrality. For example, in 1964 Congress had a very poor record of protecting the interests of communities of color. Would he have then questioned whether we could trust Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act?

Let me restate what I keep hearing from net neutrality’s detractors. The reasoning seems to be that if we give broadband providers the legal authority to discriminate on content, which will allow them to increase their profits, they will suddenly become benevolent and invest in expanding their networks or lower broadband prices. The reasoning is just not borne out by reality. These companies are earning as much as 80 percent profit margins on their broadband services; despite this, they haven't--except when forced--made broadband more affordable for poorer communities in any systematic way that would spur adoption. Worse, it was just reported that major broadband companies are actively attempting to block broadband expansion and adoption plans by smaller players when it presents competition for them.

I'd still like to hear a response from those groups that say they represent the interests of communities of color, but are in line with the broadband providers. If there's a credible argument to be made against network neutrality, I'd like to hear it and engage it. I've put my arguments out there, and I've addressed the opposing arguments. Now I hope other civil rights leaders will join the conversation.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

It’s said that politics creates strange bedfellows. I was reminded how true this can be when I traveled to D.C. in recent weeks to figure out why several advocacy groups and legislators with histories of advocating for minority interests are lining up with big telecom companies in opposition to the FCC’s efforts to pass “Net Neutrality” rules.

Net Neutrality is the principle that prevents Internet Service Providers from controlling what kind of content or applications you can access online. It sounds wonky, but for Black and other communities, an open Internet offers a transformative opportunity to truly control our own voice and image, while reaching the largest number of people possible. This dynamic is one major reason why Barack Obama was elected president and why organizations like ColorOfChange.org exist.

So I was troubled to learn that several Congressional Black Caucus members were among 72 Democrats to write the FCC last fall questioning the need for Net Neutrality rules. I was further troubled that a number of our nation’s leading civil rights groups had also taken positions questioning or against Net Neutrality, using arguments that were in step with those of the big phone and cable companies like AT&T and Comcast, which are determined to water down any new FCC rules.

First, let’s be clear: the problem of the broadband digital divide is real. Already, getting a job, accessing services, managing one’s medical care—just to mention a few examples—are all facilitated online. Those who aren’t connected face a huge disadvantage in so many aspects of our society. Broadband access is a big problem -- but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with Net Neutrality.

Yet some in the civil rights community will tell you differently. They claim that if broadband providers can earn greater profits by charging content providers for access to the Internet “fast lane,” then they will lower prices to underserved areas. In other words, if Comcast — which already earns 80 percent profit margins on its broadband services — can increase its profits under a system without Net Neutrality, then they’ll all of a sudden invest in our communities. You don’t have to be a historian or economist to know that this type of trickle-down economics never works and has always failed communities of color.

Whether the phone and cable companies can make more money by acting as toll-takers on the Internet has nothing to do with whether they will invest in increased deployment of broadband. If these companies think investing in low-income communities makes good business sense, they will make the investment. Benevolence doesn’t factor into the equation.

On my trips to Washington, I met with some of the groups and congressional offices questioning or opposing Net Neutrality. I asked them what evidence they had to back up claims that undermining Net Neutrality would lead to an expansion of broadband to under-served communities, or that preserving Net Neutrality would thwart expansion. Not one could answer my question. Some CBC members hadn’t yet been presented with a counter to the industry’s arguments; others told stories about pressure from telecom companies or from other members of congress. As one CBC staffer told me, many CBC members have willingly supported the business agenda of telecom companies because the industry can be counted on to make campaign contributions, and they face no political backlash.

I also heard from people who don’t consider themselves against Net Neutrality, but who say their issue is prioritizing broadband expansion over maintaining Net Neutrality—as if the two have some intrinsic competitive relationship. When I’ve asked about the relationship, again, no one could provide anything concrete.

To those taking positions against Net Neutrality, I ask what sense it makes to undermine the very power of the Internet, especially for our communities, in order to provide access to everyone, presuming for a second the two were even connected. It’s like what we have with cable — our communities are saturated with programming that they cannot control, with no benefit of empowerment for anyone. Again, no one with whom I talked had an answer to this point.

Prominent lawmakers, including CBC members Reps. John Conyers, Maxine Waters, and Donna Edwards are vocal supporters, as are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama — who has pledged to “take a back seat to no one” on the issue. And last week, Mignon Clyburn, a commissioner at the FCC, called out advocacy groups entrusted by many to represent our communities, for making half-baked arguments that completely miss the boat on the importance of Net Neutrality to our communities.

As Clyburn pointed out, far from being just a concern of the digital elite, Net Neutrality is essential to what makes the Internet a place where people of color and marginalized communities can speak for ourselves without first asking for permission from gatekeepers, and where small blogs, businesses, and organizations operate on a level playing field with the largest corporations. Net Neutrality regulations are needed to protect the status quo, because the telecom industry sees an opportunity for profit in fundamentally altering this basic aspect of the Internet.

In the coming weeks I plan to head back to DC to continue to fight for Net Neutrality. I’m hoping that on my next trip some of the anti-Net Neutrality civil rights groups or CBC members will heed my call and explain their position. I would like to believe that there is more to the “civil rights” opposition to Net Neutrality than money, politics, relationships, or just plain lack of understanding. For now, I’m doing my best to keep an open mind. But I don’t think it will stay that way for much longer.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Afro-Netizen recommends making an ongoing commitment at a level you can afford. Mainstream media will move on to the next thing in a matter of days. So, before this crisis gets overshadowed by the Tea Party or Tiger Woods, Part II, Afro-Netizen strongly urges you to set up an automated, recurring donation throughout the year (or longer) so that even if you no longer actively follow this tragic story, your money will.

By the way, tele-racist Pat Robertson believes God has cursed Haitians for being the first Black nation to throw off the yoke of colonization. Let's defy his bigotry with our generosity in this time of crisis.

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

When my White liberal colleagues who have drunk the Web-is-color-blind Kool-Aid, and rant quixotic about the transcendent power of technology as the great equalizer, what praytell do they think about this . . . ?

This seems like a perfect 21st century example of the continuing harm of racial invisibility. Next time you think about spouting "color-blindness" as a good thing, watch this video again.

Just like the well-meaning people who think this is a laudable goal or quality in people, the HP techs who're responsible for this glitch probably didn't mean to develop the software to discriminate against dark-skinned people. Nevertheless, the result is the same isn't?

Invisibility sucks, people.

In fact, I'm pretty sure there was a pretty important piece of literature written on this very topic back in 1947. Now, what was that book called?